Evaluation of CFSR, TMPA 3B42 and ground-based rainfall data as input for hydrological models, in data-scarce regions: The upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

- Comparisons were conducted in watersheds with dense and scarce network of gauge stations
- Gauged, CFSR and TRMM were cross compared and used to simulate observed flow
- CFSR provided dominant performance over gauged data in data scarce region

Accurate prediction of hydrological models requires accurate spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall. In developing countries, the network of observation stations for rainfall is sparse and unevenly distributed. Satellite-based products have the potential to overcome this shortcoming. The objective of this study is to compare the advantages and the limitation of commonly used high-resolution satellite rainfall products (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) 3B42 version 7) as input to hydrological models as compared to sparsely and densely populated network of rain gauges. We used two (semi-distributed) hydrological models that performed well in the Ethiopian highlands: Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning (HBV) and Parameter Efficient Distributed (PED). The rainfall products were tested in two watersheds: Gilgel Abay with a relatively dense network of rain gauge stations and Main Beles with a relatively scarce network, both are located in the Upper Blue Nile Basin. The results indicated that TMPA 3B42 was not be able to capture the gauged rainfall temporal variation in both watersheds and was not tested further. CFSR over predicted the rainfall pattern slightly. Both the gauged and the CFSR reanalysis data were able to reproduce the streamflow well for both models and both watershed when calibrated separately to the discharge data. Using the calibrated model parameters of gauged rainfall dataset together with the CFSR rainfall, the stream discharge for the Gilgel Abay was reproduced well but the discharge of the Main Beles was captured poorly partly because of the poor accuracy of the gauged rainfall dataset with none of the rainfall stations located inside the watershed. HBV model performed slightly better than the PED model, but the parameter values of the PED could be identified with the features of the landscape.